Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY (10:59 AM) —I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Integrity of Regional Migration Schemes) Bill 2000. I commend the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the job he is doing in the immigration portfolio. This is yet another manifestation of the attention he is giving to ensuring that immigration serves the needs of all Australians and most particularly those in rural and regional areas. The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme was established as a pilot program in 1995. The objective of this bill is to introduce a new cancellation proposal for regional sponsored scheme visas where the migrant does not fulfil their visa responsibilities.

It would be helpful to go into some background on how this very worthy scheme works. I was pleased to hear the comments of my colleague with regard to the need in rural and regional Australia for skilled migrants and skilled workers in general. There is no doubt that in regional and rural Australia there is sometimes difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled personnel, particularly skilled migrants, to address local skill shortages. We would have all heard the arguments about the need to attract doctors and other allied health professionals to rural and regional areas. The same shortages exist in many other sectors of industry and commerce.

I think the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme is a very worthy program. It offers substantial concessions to applicants for these sponsored visas. They generally require only diploma level qualifications and there is also, in certain cases, a waiver of language and age requirements. The central criterion for application is employment in rural and regional Australia. They must be nominated by an employer on the condition that they will undertake full-time employment in the business of that employer for at least two years in a rural and regional area. There has to be a two-year contract of employment. I note that there is no bias or penalty for the migrant if there is a downturn in business activity, if the business closes, or if there is financial loss or bankruptcy. Quite plainly, it would not be the skilled migrant's concern were those things to take place. I think it is appropriate that there be no penalty for them under those circumstances.

Since the pilot program was introduced in 1995, there has been an increasing trend for regional sponsored migration schemes, and many visas have been granted. In 1996-97 170 visas were granted. In 1999-2000 the figure was 664. I would like to share with the House the story of one young skilled migrant and his wife who work in my electorate. A young engineer from Somalia, he works in one of the sugar mills in my electorate. He has some particular skills needed in that mill. He is doing very well. He is well regarded by his employer and by his co-workers and is extremely well regarded by his community. It has been a success all round. He and his wife are a delightful young couple. They are very ready to make a commitment to Australia and to raise their family here. They are very good citizens and, as I said, are very well regarded by their co-workers, particularly by their employer, and by the community generally.

So a great deal of good comes from these schemes. They enable those of us who live in rural and regional Australia to enjoy having people from different cultures and outlooks come and live in our community and raise their families there. The schemes often top up the skills available in the local community with some specialist input. However, all programs, and even this worthy program, can be honed to make them more effective. A recent review of the scheme by a business advisory panel recommended visa cancellation if the visa holder failed to fulfil their obligations—bearing in mind that these visa holders have had some special concessions, perhaps in terms of qualifications, language or age. They have been afforded an opportunity that many other would-be immigrants have not been afforded. Therefore, there is an obligation on them to fulfil what is a reasonable period of employment—two years. It is not a long time to ask for them to settle in a rural or regional community.

This is a very simple and sensible amendment. It will enable the cancellation of a visa where the holder has not made a serious attempt to fulfil their obligations—where, for instance, they may not have commenced employment with their sponsor or where they have not made a genuine effort to do so, or where they may have been terminated for not making a genuine effort to remain in the employment of the sponsoring employer. There is an example quoted where a migrant was granted a skilled migrant visa at an overseas Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs office. On arrival, the migrant informed his sponsor and employer that he did not want to start immediately. The migrant subsequently turned up in a capital city in another state and applied for Centrelink assistance. Apparently, that visa holder is now renting a house, has a phone and has bought two cars.

There are losers in this situation. There are those genuine migrants who have had someone get ahead of them in the queue, gain entry into Australia and then not fulfil their obligations. There has been a loss to the employer. Plainly this person's skills were valued or their employer would not have sponsored them. So that employer in rural and regional Australia is probably feeling pretty disappointed now. There is a loss to the community. This person would have come there with their family and become part of the community. It would have meant another job and another person to, I guess, add depth to that rural community and they have not fulfilled that. So there are a lot of disappointments from this outcome.

There is the Australian taxpayer who, after all, bears the cost of many of these things. There are others who might have wanted to come in this migrant's place. There is the employer, there are the co-workers and the community. This person has not done the right thing by all of those groups and individuals. This is, apparently, a real life case. Plainly there was no intention of fulfilling the obligations. These people have jumped the queue. They have used a backdoor entry into Australia. They have disappointed, along the way, a lot of people who were relying upon them. If this migrant had wanted to live in a capital city from the start, then they should have applied in the normal way and waited in the queue, as other genuine would-be immigrants do.

This is a manipulation of the scheme, which disappoints many people and the rural and regional community loses a genuine person with the necessary skills wanting to live in that community. This is a sensible amendment that will stop this manipulation. It is a good scheme and is held, rightly, in high repute. There have been quite a number of successes in my area—I have referred to the young Somalian engineer and his wife—and we hope to have many more. These people are a real benefit to a rural and regional community. Not only do they bring their skills but they bring a different way of life, they bring different customs and they add depth to the community. All of us are very pleased to see such people come into our communities.

However, there are those who seek to manipulate the scheme. Such a worthy scheme must have its integrity preserved. We cannot allow it to be manipulated and we cannot allow people to be disappointed with its outcomes. This amendment will discourage those who are looking to take advantage of a worthy scheme and simply want to come into Australia and live in a capital city. Those people will have to use the usual immigration channels and wait in the queue as others do. But this will benefit those who genuinely have skills to offer and want to come and live and make their home in and enrich a rural and regional community in Australia. This amendment will satisfy those people, potential employers, the taxpayer, co-workers and—most of all—our rural and regional communities. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. I find that so many of the measures that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs makes are sensible, measured and well thought out proposals. This is certainly one of those. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.